GPS digital producer Jason Miks sits down with renowned evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, author of the Selfish Gene and An Appetite for Wonder, to discuss readers’ questions on religion, its role in society and whether children can be described as “Christian.”

A number of readers noting your skepticism over religion’s role in society ask whether an absence of religion would leave us without a moral compass?

The very idea that we get a moral compass from religion is horrible. Not only should we not get our moral compass from religion, as a matter of fact we don’t. We shouldn’t, because if you actually look at the bible or the Koran, and get your moral compass from there, it’s horrible – stoning people to death, stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.

Now of course we don’t do that anymore, but the reason we don’t do it is that we pick out those verses of the bible that we like, and reject those verses we don’t like. What criteria do we use to pick out the good ones and reject the bad ones? Non-biblical criteria, non-religious criteria. The same criteria as guide any modern person in their moral compass that has nothing to do with religion.

So the moral compass of any person is very much a part of the century or even the decade in which they happen to live, regardless of their religion. So we live in the early 21st century, and our moral compass in the early 21st century is quite different from 100 years ago, or 200 years ago. We are now much less racist than they were, much less sexist than they were. We are much kinder than non-human animals than they were – all sorts of respects in which we are labeled with a moral compass. So something has changed, and it certainly has nothing to do with religion.

You’ve been travelling to the States from the U.K. for a number of years. Have you noticed much of a change in the place of religion in the two countries over that time?

Notoriously, the United States is the most religious of the Western advanced nations. It’s a bit mysterious why that is. In Britain, Christianity is dying. Islam, unfortunately, isn’t. In Western Europe generally, Christianity is dying. Even in America, the figures show that religious adherence is being steadily reduced, and the people who now record themselves as having no religious affiliation is something like 20 percent. Many people don’t recognize what a high figure it is, and so politicians here who feel they have to curry favor with religious lobbies should maybe take a look at those statistics and realize that not everyone in this country is religious.

You say it’s a bit of a mystery why America is so much more religious than other advanced countries. Do you have any thoughts on why it might be? Tied to that question of disposition, several readers also wondered if there is a genetic predisposition toward faith?

There probably is, but I don’t think that really explains why America is so different from Britain. The least implausible suggestion that I’ve heard is that Britain and Scandinavian countries, which are also very non-religious, have an established church, and that kind of makes religion boring. Whereas in America, there is constitutionally a bar against an established church, and that could be one reason why religion has become so popular – it has become big business, it has become free enterprise, rival churches vie with each other for congregations and especially tax free ties.

Some readers see you as very evangelical in your atheism. Do you feel it a duty, just as some Christians might to share the word of God, to spread an atheist point of view?

Duty is a funny word. But when you say evangelical, I like to think that I don’t shout or shriek, but employ a quiet, sober voice of reason. And reason is on our side.

You’ve talked about feeling uncomfortable with the impact of religion on children. In fact, one reader asked whether you would prefer to see no under-18s at church. What’s your take?

I certainly wouldn’t wish to prohibit parents influencing their children. However, for the rest of the world, to label a child a Catholic child simply because its parents are Catholic, seems to me to be a form of child abuse. The child is too young to know.

You can see the absurdity of talking about a Catholic child of four when you think what it would be like if we talked about an existentialist child of four, or a logical positivist of four. In other words, we wouldn’t accept the labeling of a child based the parents’ belief, so why do we accept it when it’s religion? Why does religion get a free pass when it comes to labeling children in this way?

A mother's love would be beneficial to survival of her children, thus would be something one could expect to be selected for by natural selection, and thus be a product of evolution. No mystery there.

What's on other side of universe??? First, it doesn't have "sides", but really, what's wrong with "we don't know" as an answer. Not knowing an answer doesn't imply a God exists.

Order out of disorder? You'd have to be more specific, but there are again natural explanations. The most complex orderly systems we know are living things, and their order is a product of evolution, the details of which you hopefully know: genetic inheritance, random mutation (usually harmful, but very occasional beneficial, or it wouldn't be random), and natural selection.

'where did a mother's love originate? '
it's a natural instinct to preserve the population. BTW,, some animals posses the same mother love and other animals will destroy their children. This question is meaningless. In fact your question only helps substantiate evolution.

'What's on the other side of the Universe?'
you assume the universe has another side to it. What is more realistic is that there is an infinite number of universes. It would be rather silly to state there couldn't be. After all, this one exists.

'How did order come out of disorder?' again, you are proving evolution. If you look at the universe,, every thing comes from chaos and either orders or becomes extinct. In fact our thinking ability is quite limited. Believe it or not, man never created a single thing. It's the chaos of our surroundings that we discover and then integrate (innovate). ie,, when we discovered a use of a rock as a wheel, we sure didn't make a Mercedes Benz the next day.

We aren't as smart as we think we are.. Therefore we likely might not ever understand what created all of this.One thing for sure,, if somehow it were a god,, that god might be a fourth grader from another dimension who is catching he-ll for this.

'where did a mother's love originate? '
it's a natural instinct to preserve the population. BTW,, some animals posses the same mother love and other animals will destroy their children. This question is meaningless. In fact your question only helps substantiate evolution.

'What's on the other side of the Universe?'
you ass-ume the universe has another side to it. What is more realistic is that there is an infinite number of universes. It would be rather silly to state there couldn't be. After all, this one exists.

'How did order come out of disorder?' again, you are proving evolution. If you look at the universe,, every thing comes from chaos and either orders or becomes extinct. In fact our thinking ability is quite limited. Believe it or not, man never created a single thing. It's the chaos of our surroundings that we discover and then integrate (innovate). ie,, when we discovered a use of a rock as a wheel, we sure didn't make a Mercedes Benz the next day.

We aren't as smart as we think we are.. Therefore we likely might not ever understand what created all of this.One thing for sure,, if somehow it were a god,, that god might be a fourth grader from another dimension who is catching he-ll for this.

When you encounter someone who professes to be an Atheist, take the most personally advantageous action: eat him. Atheists are high in protein and a good source of B vitamins and amino acids. They tend to be greasy, so otherwise watch your intake of fats and cholesterol. Be discrete in your endeavors until Atheists are recognized as game animals by the state. Remember, you have nothing to fear except law enforcement as long as you have braised, roasted or broiled the Atheist to an internal temperature of at least 180 degrees.

They are also good in casseroles and fricassees.

Some within our movement have brought to my attention that since only a small percentage of the US population identifies as Atheist, a domestic shortage will soon ensue. The problem of the necessary importation of foreign stock is a real one, and though logistically challenging, should be met with by the harvest of readily available European animals. Atheists are common in Europe since the great conflagrations of WW II and the Cold War. The horrors perpetrated by Nietzschean inspired Fascism are not easily forgotten. And the long and draining Cold War–necessary defense against the wholly Atheistic social and economic philosophy of Marx and the realized atrocities of Stalin, et al.–has left Europe moribund and stagnate. The irony that so many Europeans have responded to the historical horrors of Atheistic philosophy by embracing Atheism themselves is delicious. I suggest we take advantage of it: literally.

Make no mistake. I am an Atheist myself. But I will never reveal this to the world. It serves my interests to call myself a Believer.

Do not bore me with notions of how I should obey my "inner moral sense". My moral sense is nothing more than a genetic imprint, a primitive survival advantage I have outgrown–much as I have outgrown the need for God. I can discard them both easily. They are worthless to me. After all, God Is Dead and the only good is what is good for me. I am the Superman. I am Beyond Good and Evil.

Religion and spirituality has been around, in every part of the planet, since the first humanoid could pick up a rock and draw a picture. Tens and tens of thousands of years. It's part of our nature. Why is that? You can no more say your atheistic values and beliefs aren't part of that, than you trying to draw hydrogen from water.

we are part of the universe,, each of our atoms belong to it. In fact the stars contain each element within us. We should feel part of the bigger picture,, that's where spirituality come from, our unity with it.

But to create stories without any proof that just aren't believable,, is just silly.

You touched a right aspect – believability of the hypothesis. Each more or less intellectual human asks himself or herself a question: how to explain the world around us? Where everything, so complex, came from?
Some people not inclined to finding answers or build hypotheses by themselves look for what is offered in the market of hypotheses. Some build them on their own. But the essence is that practically everybody is looking for answers for BELIEVABLE hypotheses. Most of the people observe the teleological design of the world and the hypotheses that it came about all by itself is not believable for them. Some Creator must have to exist who created all that. The largest part of these people resort to religion. Intelligent design and presence of intellectual force is more acceptable to the others. Some less intellectual people, like atheists, ignore the powerful intellectual design of the world, they are kind of intellectually blind, they do not need hypotheses, they only need facts and proofs. That is OK, that is a form of another "religion" or philosophy. But when any of the religions including "atheism" becomes militant, pushing itself on others, intolerant to other people's choices in this area, this makes me angry.

September 28, 2013 at 7:04 pm |

tony

Pity Yitty, that you have the probability of your ideas in an infinitely reverse order. Using you "reasoning", I suppose you think that winning the lottery is a far more likely outcome than losing.

September 28, 2013 at 7:22 pm |

biobraine

"Some Creator must have to exist who created all that." Who created the creator?

"Some less intellectual people, like atheists, ignore the powerful intellectual design of the world, they are kind of intellectually blind, they do not need hypotheses, they only need facts and proofs." This statement contradicts itself. Evidence and proof are what support a hypothesis. An intellectual person would expect evidence before a belief in something unfounded. A theory was once a hypothesis that has since been backed up by overwhelming evidence. For instance, evolution is a theory not a hyptohesis. Athiests as a whole are better educated than religious folk.

"That is OK, that is a form of another "religion" or philosophy. But when any of the religions including "atheism" becomes militant, pushing itself on others, intolerant to other people's choices in this area, this makes me angry." Having a rational debate about religion is not being militant or pushing one's belief on others. Do you classify everyone that disagrees with you this way? Atheism is not a religion. It is simply a disbelief in any god.

September 28, 2013 at 7:33 pm |

yitkis

biobraine:"This statement contradicts itself. Evidence and proof are what support a hypothesis."

I am amazed how illiterate people can be.
"A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research."

So, Darwin's "theory" was actually a hypothesis which scientists only many years later tried to make a theory with a number of experiments. You do not need a "proof" for a hypothesis, just observations. Darwin saw resemblance of species and assumed that they have common ancestors and built his hypothesis on the basis of this assumption. The supporters of Intelligent Design observe intelligence that is needed to create the design of nature and living organisms and, naturally, assume the existence of intelligent force that possesses this intelligence. Evolutionists seem to disregard this intelligence in the design of the world.

In short, your mistakes: hypothesis does not need a proof, only observations. If there is a proof, it is no longer a hypothesis, it is a theorem or a theory.

September 28, 2013 at 9:03 pm |

biobraine

Yes, the definition you gave about the difference between a theory and a hypothesis is correct. You start with a hypothesis. Evidence supports it and over time it becomes a theory. The example I gave is the theory of evolution. You start with a hypothesis and test it. What you're going on about I am not sure. Starting with Darwin and going through today there is overwhelming evidence of evolution. There is zero evidence for intelligent design. This is because there is zero proof of any creator. To say that something must have had a creator because it exists is not proof of anything. How could something as all powerful as a creator of this universe(something more complex than the universe itself) have come into being. If you say it always existed then I would ask you two questions. How do you know this and if the creator could have always existed why not the universe?

I'll be happy to continue this debate. We will see how you do against someone so illiterate as myself.

September 28, 2013 at 10:26 pm |

donna

I am very pleased to see that you understand that religion is the product of our adaptations via natural selection+ culture and history. I am surprised, I didn't realized you understood that religion was a social construct influenced biological adaptions.

Don't waste a second of your worthless time with your slanderous and lying comments on my post, fake.

September 28, 2013 at 5:58 pm |

Disillusioned

Really.Yes believe or not you're not the only person here to hold a degree , lying fr a u d.

September 28, 2013 at 6:04 pm |

donna

Disillusioned, I understand that you're embarrassed that I call you out on your previous nonsense, but I was trying to pay you a compliment here.

September 28, 2013 at 6:06 pm |

donna

Disillusioned, name one thing I've lied about.

I have provided multiple examples of your contradictions to support my comments about you, and you have done nothing but call me names, and insult my gender.

What do you think I've been fraudulent about?

September 28, 2013 at 6:08 pm |

Disillusioned

You lied about what I said, which was nothing of the sort , that people who understand biology want old people dead. Youre a fake and a lair. With two degrees. That is apparently pretty stupid to ave to resort to lies to make your point.

September 28, 2013 at 6:11 pm |

Disillusioned

Fix king l y I ng n I tech .

September 28, 2013 at 6:12 pm |

Disillusioned

No, you actually insult my gender. Resorting to lies about what I said instead of the arguement is cheap low and an insult to women everywhere. You patronizing slanspdering fraud.

September 28, 2013 at 6:18 pm |

donna

Disillusioned, I provided several quotes from you to support what I said. You said repeatedly that if atheists believed in natural selection the natural consequence of that is that we should want sick people to be left to die.

I've pasted that quote from you several times. Pretending you did not say it is pointless, your posts can't be edited, we can all read what you wrote.

You clearly have a temper and you're getting hostile. Perhaps this activity is too much for you. Please relax, this is nothing more than light conversation.

September 28, 2013 at 6:18 pm |

Disillusioned

No I did not, liar. I said that without some curbing mechanism on the idea of natural selection as it had been translated in times past by supremacist ideas into social Darwinism , the idea of ONLY bowing to natural selection will cause people to not care about others.without a curbing mechanism such as spirituality or religion or some idea of the importance of humans. Which patentlly you were to stupid to grasp. Continuously. We know this. Hitler, manifest destiny. That one man is superior to anotejr and that's allowable to kill them because of it. But yoou, the history and anthropology major, were too stupid and to so eager to try telling me something I already knew, and i was wrong, that you missed the point. So you lied about things. I Never said. Fraud.

September 28, 2013 at 6:29 pm |

donna

Ha ha ha! How sad and pathetic that you would lie about what you've said when it's here for people to read. Silly!

Disillusioned: Natural Selection "is not the only cause of human evolution. If atheists believe this, then why dont they advocate for the eradication of our sick and elderly that can't contribute to our society and use our resources."

"Disillusioned
I have a very clear understandiing of what natural selection is. It is letting nature take its course on the sick and weak."

September 28, 2013 at 6:34 pm |

Disillusioned

If I said it so much, patronizing fraud, then post exactly the words I said where people who know biology want old people to die. Post it you lying sack.

September 28, 2013 at 6:36 pm |

donna

Disillusioned, I just posted your exact words. I think you might be a little unbalanced....

September 28, 2013 at 6:40 pm |

Disillusioned

I said atheists, you lying sack. Not people Who understand biology idiot. .if you don't believe in souls or good or evil and only subscribe to actual facts and science, then why would you not take the natural course of such science as natural selection, and let your weak and sick die? If you atheists really believed this. Without soul or beliefs in such altruistic ideas or reasons for them. For two degrees you really are not. That. Bright. Truly. Clearly since you can't comprehend atheists from biology beleivers, you're less bright than even I would give credit.

September 28, 2013 at 6:42 pm |

Disillusioned

Clearly ATHEISTS and people who believe in biology mean the same thing to you. I'm sorry you do not speak English. With two degrees.

September 28, 2013 at 6:45 pm |

donna

My goodness you are a hostile person. And for one am glad if you find that religion helps you to control your temper.

So you think atheists who believe in natural selection should want sick people to die. But not biologists who believe in natural selection?

What's your view on atheist biologists? Do they want sick people to die or....?

Just because you don't believe in a soul doesn't mean you want people to suffer.

I think you've proved that believing in souls does make you a non violent person. You're the most hostile person I've seen on here and you apparently are religious and believe in souls...

September 28, 2013 at 6:47 pm |

Disillusioned

I have a problems with lying patronizing frauds trying to make false points on her lies about things I said and meant. If you cannot tell the truth on that simple thing, fraud, then don't think to correct me.

September 28, 2013 at 6:51 pm |

donna

And Disillusioned, you continue to demonstrate that you have no understanding if what natural selection is:

"....then why would you not take the natural course of such science as natural selection, and let your weak and sick die?"

That's not the natural course of natural selection. You are very ignorant about this subject. And you refuse to listen to people who try to explain it to you.

September 28, 2013 at 6:52 pm |

donna

Disillusioned,

I have said nothing but the truth. I have provided evidence from your own words for every claim about you I've made. You are lashing out and not being rational. Some people can't handle it when they are shown to be wrong, it's OK, but maybe you should work on that in the future.

Good luck to you. Maybe someday you'll read a book or take a real class in biology. You might find reality more illuminating than you thought....

September 28, 2013 at 6:55 pm |

Disillusioned

Dear you are in seriously deep denial of what you said I actually said, and I really did. You're a fraud a liar and pretty stupid for holing two degrees. Chalk one up to the degradation of our college system. I wouldn't go around proclaiming you're a grad if I were you. You do yourself no favors. No by mentioning being a woman.

September 28, 2013 at 7:10 pm |

donna

Excuse me? Again with making my gender an issue. Why are you so unable to focus on the issue at hand? You go off on tangents, your thoughts are incomplete, and your arguments are entirely inconsistent. All kidding aside, it seems that when you feel challenged, your cognitive abilities become confused. Is English not your native language? That's not a bad thing, but it might explain a lot.

Let's not fight anymore, I feel like I'm messing with someone with genuine problems, and I don't want to upset you.

Peace Disillusioned. Practice that good spirituality or religion that you think makes you better than atheists. Embrace it and make yourself feel better!

September 28, 2013 at 7:18 pm |

JD

Geez.. who lit the fuse on Disillusioned's tampon?

September 28, 2013 at 7:46 pm |

Disillusioned

Jd, you said you hope all believers die a terrible and massive death. I don't care if you actually sad it, thats not important. I'm going to post that's exactly what you said. Ip because I want to. Who cares if its a lie. You said you want all believers to undergo genocde. Because I said you did.

September 28, 2013 at 8:12 pm |

Mechanical Universe

Religious ceremonies were even used by Neanderthals during burials (or some form of communal
behavior if we want to call that religion). It's old to humans. We have come to understand the
world mechanically. We no longer believe that praying to gods will bring better harvests, nor looking
at the flight patterns of birds predictions about the outcomes of wars.

we certainly awed in the silliness at the volcano worshipers while studying cultural anthropology. However we understood that they just didn't know better and feared.

One day the same will be studied about christianity and its competing religions.

September 28, 2013 at 5:46 pm |

Liberalism RequiresTyranny

You are both perfectly pompous.

One day they'll look back at your Atheist religion the same as you look at the neanderthal's religion.

The difference is that, UNLIKE YOU BOTH, "they" won't lie to themselves. They'll understand that your religion has precisely the same merit as the Neanderthals, you are just less honorable people than the Neanderthal.

September 28, 2013 at 5:53 pm |

christian witchcraft

well liberalism,, some day you will mature. Then again, maybe not.

September 28, 2013 at 5:55 pm |

Laura

Liberalism RequiresTyranny....atheism isn't a religion...it's a lack of religion. That's like saying not skiing is a sport, not working is an occupation, not juggling is a circus act, not gardening is a hobby, etc.

September 28, 2013 at 6:18 pm |

Feekoningin

Actually, some people do. When I had my second son, a woman actually told me I needed to get rid of my cat because it would steal my baby's breath. I couldn't believe someone could be so medieval, and at first I thought she was joking. But she insisted and said it was true. And there is some underlying reason why some people cling to the myths of religion.

September 28, 2013 at 6:47 pm |

real reality

drinking funny kool aid? recognized organized religions are less than 2500 years old, your talk of 10,000 years may be talking about beliefs systems. One argument you cannot rule out is the fact that strict following of religions leads to cliques ruling and absolutely no new developments since breathing can ultimately be a crime and killing is the sentence issued. During christianities finest hours of rule the dark ages happened- only a few states of organized peoples under the christian banner who let their citizens play foot loose and fancy free without administering the harsh christian rules and sentences flourished and also actually achieved or made new medical, technological or artist developments- the rest were living hand to mouth...and today fundamentalist muslims wish to relive their own dark ages that ran concurrently, the only thing of significance during those times were churches and mosques and dead people, same was todays wackos preach...there can be societal rules in place for things but even today when u walk about are all your people friendly, polite and non judgmental?...so even religion cant erase that all it does is give someone ammunition to condemn another

Many things were once considered inevitable aspects of the human condition: polio, measles, a life expectancy of maybe 40. Given that we fixed those, I think there's at least a decent chance we'll fix religion too.

Spirituality yes, religions no. They haven't been a part of human culture that long. All too often spirituality ends where religion enters. In a way it's death of spirituality. That's why humans are so troubled

I've read psychologists and philosophers works and they have all claimed the same thing. The human race has no moral compass but what has been given by God. Every cop will tell you that without religious mentoring people become murders and cannibals.

Out of my own personal finding I have found that every atheist I have met, would eat their own children if they were starving to death. Personally there is no such thing as Atheism, it's still a belief of some type sprouted from what the individual can achieve, instead of what the individual can achieve for all.

Mike, why are a higher percentage of Christians in jail than exist in the general population?

I can assure you that the majority of Atheists would not eat their young. Just as the majority of Christians would take their children to the doctor when they are sick, as opposed to just praying. There are nuts on both sides.

September 28, 2013 at 7:26 pm |

badlobbyist

IF you would like a really good exploration of that question, read Daniel Dennett's Breaking The Spell. Excellent book.

Because ancient man could draw on a cave wall, he was religious or spiritual? Utter nonsense. Early cave dwellers drew food sources on the wall because that is what sustained them, not what they worshiped.

We have an eternal existence because everything making us up has been here since the dawn of the universe and will survive us for all eternity.

We already have eternal existence and it has nothing to do with being spiritual or religious.

Your assertion that we are somehow naturally religious is supported by what evidence? Millions of us do not believe in an anthropomorphic superpower and find such belief to be rife with arrogance and fear of the unknown. Most atheists aren't either of those things and we're better off for it.

This article confirms that Atheist are only after political power just like every other racial, social, or economical group out there. We are a country of groups driven to raise membership to gain political power and thus goodies from the government. It's just that simple. Atheists want the power and benefits of religious organizations, they could care less about you as a person...your just a member.

Nonsense; all we want is a level playing field. No atheist can hope to attain substantial political office in the US. Look at how potential candidates are vetted for their religious beliefs. It makes you wonder how many, pander to the religious right by faking devoutness.

I think a lot of people espouse religious beliefs to satisfy another agenda. I've pretty much never had to pretend to be a non-believer because there were plenty of others in my family who also did not believe. But I one day many years ago had a conversation with a male Jewish coworker, who took time off for Jewish holidays, and a female Catholic coworker who was up and down on the kneelers at mass every Sunday. I was surprised to find out that neither really believed in God. As we spoke, both rolled their eyes at the concept. Basically, the Jewish guy was Jewish because that's the way he was born and following the traditions was what he'd always done. The Catholic woman basically became Catholic to snare her husband. Both enjoyed their religious lives but neither believed. My mom also told me of a minister at the faith-based college she attended in The Netherlands who told her he didn't believe any of it and that it was just a job. That said, religion is a HUGE economic generator, and I'd hate to think what would happen to our economy if suddenly everyone decided not to support it.

September 28, 2013 at 6:57 pm |

real reality

last communique from fundamentalist muslims was they wanted one world republic under one god and if you dont convert they will kill you.....during the christian and muslim kingdom days of lore, both had everyone living in squaler while a few had the food and knowledge, during that time period nothing absolutely nothing was invented, created, thought up or artisticaly created.....thank you religion

I wouldn't say that's entirely true. I think most of us just want to live in piece. But that said, why shouldn't we seek to be a part of the decision-making? Why is my voice less worthy? Why isn't is possible that I can contribute ideas and solutions to some of the world's enduring problems, and why shouldn't I seek to be a part of the forum that does that?

This is about rights, acceptance and removal of stereotypes. Most people do not know I am an Atheist and believe I am Catholic. I do not disclose this because I am not certain how I will be treated and more importantly how my daughter will be treated. Ask yourself a question, would you invite an Atheist to dinner or your home without any alterative motives? Would you accept an invitation to dinner form an Atheist or visit his house? Would you let your children play with his? How would you treat him if you were his supervisor at work? Would you have an Atheist as a friend? For many religious people the answer to those question is a resounding no. They equate Atheist with something evil something bad. I became Agnostic when I was 12 years old, the religious teaching just did not seem believable and rational to me. At a later time I thought about the beginning of the universe. When religious people state that no one created God and God always existed with no beginning and no end I thought to myself that it is like saying that "some form of universe or multiverse" always existed and it has no beginning and no end except that I it is a fact universe exists now but no such proof exists for god.That is when I stopped being Agnostic and became an Atheist. (There is also a question what time really is?)

And "believers" aren't trying to hold on to their political power by making themselves out as holier than us or simply better than us because they have a "relationship with God"? Your logic is awful, your position tainted with an agenda of your own, and it reeks of the exclusionary position so many religious people have. As an atheist, I welcome everyone to the table, regardless of belief.

I was asked 3 questions from a religionist here today, see below. Add to it if you wish..

1)'where did a mother's love originate? '
it's a natural instinct to preserve the population. BTW,, some animals posses the same mother love and other animals will destroy their children. This question is meaningless. In fact your question only helps substantiate evolution.

2)'What's on the other side of the Universe?'
you as-s-ume the universe has another side to it. What is more realistic is that there is an infinite number of universes. It would be rather silly to state there couldn't be. After all, this one exists.

3)'How did order come out of disorder?' again, you are proving evolution. If you look at the universe,, every thing comes from chaos and either orders or becomes extinct. In fact our thinking ability is quite limited. Believe it or not, man never created a single thing. It's the chaos of our surroundings that we discover and then integrate (innovate). ie,, when we discovered a use of a rock as a wheel, we sure didn't make a Mercedes Benz the next day.

We aren't as smart as we think we are.. Therefore we likely might not ever understand what created all of this.One thing for sure,, if somehow it were a god,, that god might be a fourth grader from another dimension who is catching he-ll for this.

Remember,, I never used anything in my answers to state an absolute.. and therefore it would be a lie for me to state it as fact. However the religious do lie when they state their 'believe' as fact

The Death of God has been met with sadness by some. It kindles in me the spirit of opportunity. God and the associated baggage of his “moral order” were impediments to progress. Nowhere is this more evident than in the sphere of commerce. Some years ago, I developed a most useful medicine. Taken internally it is a cure for disorders of all kinds and acts as a general tonic. Applied topically, it is a remedy for gout and psoriasis and posses an SPF of 15. The precise recipe is, of course, a trade secret and is protected under US Patent. While God lived, the oppressive machinery of society stood in the way of the production and release of my curative. The Death of God, I hope, will occasion its availability on the free market.

I speak of Oil of Man.

Oil of Man really is one of the most useful medicines ever discovered. Its production has been somewhat limited by the natural reticence of society to make sacrifices for the afflicted. During research and development for Oil of Man, I was, in fact, forced to requisition donations of certain vital ingredients for my vats. The destruction of the logically inconsistent but simple moral system of the theists will, I hope increase availability of the necessary raw material. A godless society is perfect for the production of Oil of Man. The attempts of the Godless to construct a logically consistent system of ethics sans theos are a failure and are easily discarded by the pragmatic and enterprising among us. Some free thinking rural physicians in my area have been utilizing my tonic for years now-sending patients to me (the only dispensing pharmacy) with a prescription they are pleased to designate as __OL. Hom__.

Thank heavens for the progress of free thought. The elimination of society’s detritus (unwanted children, the elderly, the poor, opposing political parties, etc.) and their incorporation into Oil of Man will be of great general weal to mankind as it hurtles into a future free of outmoded concepts like good and evil.

I have a theory that Jesus has come back a bunch of times, and each time we sent him to the insane asylum.
You see it's a test. When you treat the "lowest" level of society to the joys of an insane asylum, you're not Christian.
(Just a working theory, or maybe a hypothesis.....)

Humans don't have sharp teeth or claws, and we don't have thick, scaly hides. In fact, we're quite weak compared to – say, an 800-pound Bengal tiger. But that's OK, because we cooperate and work together for mutual survival.

These cooperative, social behaviors are what we evolved INSTEAD of sharp teeth and claws. They're biological and genetic, and fully capable of being passed on to offspring. We know what part of the brain produces these behaviors, and we can even observe how a pregnant mother releases pheromones that make her husband more nurturing by reducing their levels of testosterone. There is a definite biological and genetic basis for so-called moral behaviors.

Of course, our experiences and upbringing also play a huge part. Every experience we have produces a chemical reaction in the brain that physically alters our future thinking; a sort of addiction or aversion therapy. However, the basis is definitely biological. This is not remotely controversial.

And we didn't just decide to do this either. Those ancestral humans who didn't exhibit these behaviors simply didn't survive, at least not in great numbers. Think about it. How could we have possibly survived as a species if we regularly abandoned our children or failed to look after our injured or sick? This is the TRUE basis of our morality. Like it or not. Those who attribute morality to religion EXTERNALIZE that morality and DEHUMANIZE us ALL.

The beautiful thing about this is – we OWN our morality. It's an authentic PART OF US. Those who attribute it to God are either anticipating some reward or fearing punishment. This is callous and cynical. We need the courage to embrace our humanity and moral heritage and do the hard work of being alive...

Interviewer: You say it’s a bit of a mystery why America is so much more religious than other advanced countries. Do you have any thoughts on why it might be? Tied to that question of disposition, several readers also wondered if there is a genetic predisposition toward faith?

Mr. Dawkins: There probably is,

Explain your answer, Mr. Dawkins, please. Both the interviewer and you simply left it there. As an evolutionary biologist, you must have some actual reasons for saying, "There probably is."

My field, the history of religions, which is not theology, is a social science based on the assumption that "There probably is." We then seek to observe, listen, and analyze human religious behavior. You yourself have ultimate concerns that lead you to "evangelize" on behalf of a-theism. And you do know that some major religions do not worship a god, including Buddhism; yet they are religions. Likewise, there are religions that do not assume there is an afterlife, such as Australian aboriginal religion, which for almost 40,000 years spanned a continent. It seems that your rejection of religion is based upon a very narrow definition of what religious behavior is. However, I would really like to know why you think, as an evolutionary scientist, that a genetic basis for religion exists or "probably" exists. Thank-you.
(Please make your answer public, so that I may hear it.)

Jean, the adaptation to believe in things that there is no evidence for (faith), is very clearly understood actually. It's an adaption for being able to teach your young about things without them having to experience it directly. It's part of learning theory.

Because humans have the adaptation for faith (to believe without evidence), we can learn far more information than we could without that. If we needed to eat berries that are poisonous ourselves to know they are poisonous rather than having faith that when we are told they are poisonous that they are, we wouldn't be so successful.

Faith is a crucial adaptation for learning large amounts of information. But because we have an adaptation to believe things without evidence, we are more likely to believe things that aren't true than if we needed to learn through direct experience only.

Atheists have faith, you can deny this if you want to but atheists have faith on their belief system. Atheism is a belief system period. And atheists have more faith tn their atheism than any religious person about their religion.

September 28, 2013 at 7:29 pm |

donna

Atheists@AreEvils,

Why would you read what I just wrote and interpret it to mean that I thought I didn't use faith?

September 28, 2013 at 7:46 pm |

Disillusioned

Why would she do that? for he very same reason you would take my questioning about atheists not following natural selection to a logical end, and then tell people I said that people believing in biology want olld people to die. Kind of annoying, isn't it,lying hypocrite.

September 28, 2013 at 11:10 pm |

Mopery

Believers always ask for evidence that god does not exist, yet how many believers insist on evidence for god's existence? See: Double Standard.

Some people are more concerned than others about a level playing field regarding government entanglement with religion. Ask those people why they have no issue with their tax dollars being spent to promote monotheism in general or Christianity over other religions.

Why should the politicians court people who are too stupid to believe in God? LOL, maybe they believe in the big bang theory. Yes, there was a big explosion and then years later people existed and could smell flowers, hear birds and see a sunrise. LOL There is a God, of course there is only one God otherwise the universe would be as big a mess as the earth is now. That's half the battle, realizing that there is a God and that there is only one and thousands of ideas from billions of people will never change that reality. Dumber that a post? Well you shouldn't even be voting!

Why limit yourself to one single possibility for how/why humanity and the universe exist? What is so scary about saying "I Don't Know."? Even if you believe as strongly as anyone can in a monotheistic explanation of existence, it is still possible to at least acknowledge or have the intellectual flexibility to consider other possibilities. If you could accept that no one has all the answers, it would allow for meaningful philosophical and moral discussions. But once you've stated a construct or idea as absolute truth, there is no room for discourse.

All Dawkins does is he sets up straw men and knocks them down. He finds the worst examples of people who claim to be of faith and says that they represent all who claim the same faith.
Sometimes we as Christians do the same thing.
How about an intelligent conversation instead of name calling OK poopy head?

It's very hard to have a good conversation with an atheist, even Dawkins is calling religious people idiots, morons etc...He is an example for his followers, and one of the reason i say atheists have no morals. They keep saying that they don't need God to have morals, but i have not seen one atheist not calling people by dirty names. If they can figure out how to have morals without a God then why the constant insults and the name calling from atheists? Obviously they pretend or think they have morals, but their actions show otherwise.

Surely there are atheists who behave badly.
You aren't claiming that religious people always behave morally, do you?

September 30, 2013 at 9:46 am |

achi

At start, he pick a piece of Bible and interprete it out of its context and spirit. He attack it to make his own point - Bible can be randomly interpreted without the guide of context, Holy spirit and priests. Then he claim reasoning is on his side. Of couse, when someone criticized, we always learn. Something the Christians should learn is that Bible should be interpreted in a correct way. I would thank him for that.
He can not justify himeself. Actually most modern human being can not completely justify oneself too, this is part of our sin. And it is proved. So the believes of Jesus would touched by His love and humble them selves down to His salvation. Sometimes I would amazed by how people so eagerly WANT to view others in their own way. For example, when I start to believe in Jesus from a self believed Athesit (actually I do not know and hold off any Athesist theory), my friend simply mark me as "convertied into a Christian". I try to convence them it is "believe in Jesus", to my friend, no matter what I think, I do or I beleive, it is simply their interpretation: "convert to Christian". I have been view world the same way for many years before I opened my eyes by the light from Jesus.

As a human being you, I or anyone else cannot know or understand the true purpose of the universe and its components. To think a man named Jesus could walk on water and turn water into wine and heal all ailments with no actual proof (from people or scrolls at that time) makes one wonder. But in the end no human being is qualified to tell others the "real" purpose of life and the universe.

Hi Liam,
Thank you for you polite reply and reasoning. Yes, I do agree no human can completely justify his believe to any God or such figure, become that is out of our knowledge. However God, if exist, will be the God who reveil (disclose) Himself to us. That makes sense. And that is the God in the Bible do. Is that right? God reveal himself through many things, one is miracal at the time Jesus is in the world. Walk on the water can not be explained by science, but if everything Jesus did can be explained by science, He would not be God any more. Today as a Christian, I would say God reveal himself to us mostly from His love, forgiveness, giving of freedom, salvation and the Spririt that we should love each other. I really wish there will be someday you can accept Him.

" I m saying that the natural course of natural selection would mean the death of most of the human species with a destroyed planet to be ruled b a few warlords that are ruthless enough to continue, if we don't engage some basic values of empathy and compassion that go beyond who can live the longest by being a warlord"

This is such a misguided view of natural selection. Natural selection favors increased reproduction, not slaughtering everyone who would reproduce.

Natiural selection favors the reproduction of the few healthiest and most able to survive conditions to pass traits along. . It does not favor overall reproduction of the species in its entirety.

September 28, 2013 at 11:02 pm |

Disillusioned

If you were such the biology expert you claimed to be, then you would realize this. But actually you'reretty stupid for attempting to pass yourself off as the voice of scientific reason.

September 28, 2013 at 11:23 pm |

donna

You are a sick and perverse individual. You should get professional help.

September 29, 2013 at 3:15 pm |

achi

We are people who search freedom. We search for equal rights, euqal opertunities, humanities, protection of law, financial freedom and so on. However in Jesus's teaching, no matter what we seek, we are all slave of our sin. God will give us other freedom through salvation, which is a forgiveness of our sin.
No one have right to take that kind of forgiveness and freedom from me and my children. No matter he claim his self as a doctor or not!

Lies and damned lies from the darling of secular humanists. Talk with anyone who has honestly studied ethics and they will tell you the slippery slope of relativism. There is no authority, no basis for morality apart from religion. No where is that more apparent than in the politics of secular humanists, who are almost always far left in their views.

God does not exist (or at least never shows up) and the church (pick any one) is a poor moral compass if not a negative one. Ask any sociologist and they will tell you what's already common sense ... morals come from societal needs and constantly evolve as the needs of society change. Ask any psychologically conditioned religious believer and they'll disagree.

Moral Relativism, though often associated with Atheism, is not the required moral construct for all Atheists to adopt. It is possible to hold belief in absolute Moral Law without it being backed up by religion, though you may be correct that moral relativism is a philosophy more commonly adopted by atheists and agnostics than those who adhere to a particular religious doctrine.

Any genuine actualized atheist will NEVER court politicians or proselytize for new converts because of our comfort alone in the universe. Of course as humans we seek connection with others but not because we fear being alone without divine intervention but in spite of it. It would be wonderful if there was a higher power and our lives were not random chance but we are not betting on it. And for the record we would LOVE to be wrong about this, we just are not.

This is the silliest argument I've ever heard Dawkins make. Is he losing his mind? As an atheist he should be the most contented person in the world. After all, what is, is, and we have no right to change anything. He has no right to question why the universe is what it is as an atheist. Atheism offers no basis for "should'ves" or to question moral rightness. You need to accept the "is" of your Godless universe Dawkins!!

What in the world is wrong with you? I've been reading your ranting posts for twelve pages and there is clearly something wrong with you. Perhaps you should get some medical assistance. As a humane person, I'm somewhat concerned about you but as a human you're just ticking me off.

Unfortunately, it appears that this Richard Dawkins is right. Atheism does seem to be the wave of the future which in turn will lead to a decline in morality. This is evidenced by the increase of drug use by our young people and the support for all these current useless wars that we're in. As a nation, we're already morally bankrupt as a result of this trend!

Joseph You point to Atheism as the cause of moral decay however the exact opposite is what is true .The most Atheistic democratic countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries and they rate the highest in social health .The US is the most religious and they rate the lowest

Drug and lack of morality when it comes down to $ex. Both are the reason why this society is in decline. Specially kids who are left without morals because of atheism being a part of their life nowadays.

Mr.Dawkins seems to be a little misinformed. his verses on stoning to death were laws of the Jewish Pharisees(Religious Leaders of the Day) Nowhere in the Bible does God give such a command. And besides that When Jesus came He abolished all those laws and fullfilled them with a sacrifice. We are now to live by two laws since Christ. Love the Lord your God with all your heart soul and mind. And Love your neighbor as you Love yourself! God Bless all on this Form and May Jesus touch Mr.Dawkins and Bless him!!

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

About us

The Global Public Square is where you can make sense of the world every day with insights and explanations from CNN's Fareed Zakaria, leading journalists at CNN, and other international thinkers. Join GPS editor Jason Miks and get informed about global issues, exposed to unique stories, and engaged with diverse and original perspectives.